Crush Liberalism

Liberalism: Logic's retarded cousin. Why think when you can "feel"?

Monday, January 31, 2005

Iraqis vote en masse; Kerry calls election "failure"

John F'ing Kerry, fresh off of his electoral ass-beating, went on Russert's little-watched Meet the Press (hat tip to the poor schmucks who actually did watch it) show on Sunday to comment on, among other things, Iraq's elections.

In short, Kerry called the elections a failure, and cautioned Iraqis not to get too excited about their newly found fledgling democracy (and first freeelection in about 50 years). Seems about 75% of Iraqis felt much differently than the rich woman's toy felt. Thanks for the words of encouragement, you haughty French-looking self-righteous bastard. No damned wonder he lost by 3.5 million votes!

Anyway, here are a couple of pictures that are more telling of what Iraqis themselves think of their election:

Seems these good people of the Al Monsour district in western Baghdad walked along the freeway Jan. 30, 2005, to get to their polling sites. One 75-year-old man traveled three miles in his wheelchair, just for a shot at democracy. "My poor nephew pushed me all the way. But I had to come. Now that the criminal Saddam is gone this could be my only chance to vote." Boortz had this one right: "I wonder what Hillary Clinton would say to this man right now? After all, she was the one that said people, and specifically women, were better off under Saddam Hussein."

Another:

A proud voter showing that he did indeed exercise his right. By the way, note the purple ink on the index finger. It means you've already voted. We should adopt that here, to keep people from voting more than once. Naturally, liberals would complain that it would "profile" voters. Of course it would...the fradulent voters. That's a plum liberal constituency, and they don't want to lose these multivoters without a fight!

Sunnis boycotted the polls in sizeable numbers. Whoopty-freakin'-doo! Like I said before, all that means is that they consent to be governed by the ruling party, since they abdicated their desire to get involved in the shaping of their future. Hopefully, American liberals will follow their cue.

Friday, January 28, 2005

"Senator 'Cut-and-Run'"

It is an absolute mystery why the citizens of the state of Massachusetts have elected and re-elected Ted Kennedy to the Senate over and over again for 42 years. Because every time he speaks out on an issue, he is an absolute embarrassment to his constituents.

Now the brave hero of Chappaquiddick has decided to regale us with his solution to the growing insurgency in Iraq. It's all so easy. We just leave! We cut and run. That's right, he's calling for the United States to simply leave Iraq. "There will be more serious violence if we continue our present dangerous and reckless course," said the Senator. Oh really? What does he propose will happen if we just leave?

First of all .. someone has to say this, so I will. With those words yesterday Ted Kennedy signed a death warrant for more American soldiers. Those words encouraged the people in Iraq who are trying to kill their fellow Iraqis and as many American troops as they can. If, in the next few days, you get that knock on the door telling you that your son or daughter was killed in a bombing in Iraq, you might want to reflect on the role Ted Kennedy played in that tragedy. I just can't say it strongly enough. This man is a vile, repugnant leftist pig and he's costing lives .. American lives ... in Iraq.

So .. what if we do follow Kennedy's advice? What will happen is another Taliban, that's what. The Islamic jihadists will immediately take over, start executing all of the non-believers, enslave the women and institute a terrorist state. Training camps would be set up, and we would have a whole new generation of suicide bombers, hijackers and Al-Qaeda hit men, all thanks to Teddy Kennedy's disastrous foreign policy advice.

What kind of message would that send to the rest of the world? To the Iraqi people? To the other members of the Coalition? The wrong message. Then again, Ted Kennedy specializes in cutting and running. Just ask Mary Jo Kopechne.

Wednesday, January 26, 2005

Air America growing...why am I glad?

Air America, the upstart liberal radio network, is finally gaining some traction in the industry after a rocky, uncertain beginning.

Despite being placed on life support shortly after its much-hyped March 2004 launch, The Wall Street Journal reports Air America has spread to 45 markets, including New York City, Boston, Miami, San Francisco, and Portland, Ore.

(snip...)

But the network has a long way to go to counter its more successful conservative competitors.

Michael Harrison, editor of the industry's Talker magazine, told the Journal that 75 to 80 percent of total talk programming is conservative.

And, the Journal reported, "a June 1 study from Washington, D.C-based Democracy Radio reported that national and local conservative programming totaled over 40,000 hours every week, while progressive, or liberal, programming totaled just over 3,000 hours."

Profitability also continues to elude the network. It's president, John Sinton, told the Journal Air America is still in the red, though he expects to turn a profit soon.

Why am I hoping that Air America catches on? Mainly, for one reason and one reason alone: the so-called "Fairness Doctrine."

In 1987 that the FCC rescinded the so-called "Fairness Doctrine." Under this doctrine broadcast stations had to make time available to all parties to present opposing views on various issues. Seems harmless, right? Wrong.

The plan made no sense. In a community with 25 radio stations and only one newspaper it was the radio stations that were forced to present all sides of an issue, while the newspaper went on it's merry way. Political activists soon found out how to use the "Fairness Doctrine" to harass any broadcast outlet that had the nerve to allow an opinion to be expressed with which they disagreed. Richard Nixon was heard to brag about how he used this tool to hammer those who criticized him on radio and television.

With the end of the "Fairness Doctrine" talk radio broke through and the AM band was salvaged. Today radio stations, like newspapers, are free to broadcast without suffering harassment at the hands of those who can't stand the free expression of opinions with which they do not agree.

If market forces allow Air America to survive, then life is good. If market forces cause Air America to crash and burn, then look for the left to try to ram the "Fairness Doctrine" down our throats and put an end to talk radio...all in the name of "fairness", of course! After all, owning the MSM is not enough for liberals, since we red-staters are bypassing their leftist drivel by getting information from other sources, i.e. talk radio and the Internet. If they try to shut down talk radio today, they'll aim for regulating Internet speech after that.

So let's hope that Air America survives...just don't listen to it! Let liberals listen to other liberals, and continue to lose elections.

"ANOTHER COLUMNIST WAS PAID TO PROMOTE BUSH PROPOSAL"

In 2002, syndicated columnist Maggie Gallagher repeatedly defended President Bush's push for a $300 million initiative encouraging marriage as a way of strengthening families.

But Gallagher failed to mention that she had a $21,500 contract with the Department of Health and Human Services to help promote the president's proposal, reveals Howard Kurtz in Wednesday runs of the WASHINGTON POST.

"The Bush marriage initiative would emphasize the importance of marriage to poor couples" and "educate teens on the value of delaying childbearing until marriage," she wrote in National Review Online, for example, adding that this could "carry big payoffs down the road for taxpayers and children."

Gallagher explains to Kurtz: "Did I violate journalistic ethics by not disclosing it? I don't know. You tell me." She said she would have "been happy to tell anyone who called me" about the contract but that "frankly, it never occurred to me" to disclose it.

National Review Editor Rich Lowry said of the HHS contract: "We would have preferred that she told us, and we would have disclosed it in her bio."

Sorry, but while I do support President Bush and did vote for him twice, there are a few things about him that bother me. One of them is that for a "conservative", he sure does spend like a drunken sailor...and I'm not counting the defense budget, since only a liberal would argue for the need to cut defense spending during a time of war.

First, there was Armstrong Williams getting paid nearly a quarter of a million dollars to promote Bush's "No Child Left Behind" program. Now we find out that Maggie Gallagher was paid to promote another Bush idea! Is this the best use of public dollars? The President has persuaded me (and millions of others) on the merits of his ideas...why in God's name did his administration feel the need to pay people to persuade others?

Sorry, folks, but while I do like the man, I have to call things like I see them...and these two payoffs were horrible moves on this administration's part!
I don't condone paying private citizens with public money to lobby other private citizens on behalf of pet legislation...from the left or the right...period. While it may not be illegal, it sure is wrongheaded and wasteful, especially since we're running a defecit.

Ted Turner, off the deep end

Ted Turner is not what you might called thrilled with the surge of Fox News Channel in the cable television ratings. After all, CNN is Ted's baby. I can remember many many moons ago sitting with Ted Turner at a private lunch at the Commerce Club in downtown Atlanta. At that time, the early 70's I think, I was hosting a television show on Turner's WTBS. Turner sat there at lunch and told me of his plans for a cable television news service. I nodded politely and tried to keep my elbows off the table. Little did I know the level of success that Turner would achieve with his dream. Now that success is sullied by the growing popularity of Fox News Channel ... and Ted is torqued, and Ted felt the need to go on the attack against Fox News. So, attack Ted did ... at the National Association for Television Programming Executives meeting in Las Vegas.

In attacking Fox News I suspect Ted is faced with the same problem that my more liberal listeners have been faced for the entirety of 2004. In January of 2004 I challenged my listeners to watch Fox News carefully and to call my show with any evidence of any right-wing bias in the presentation of news stories on any Fox News program. Obviously you will find bias on the opinion programs, that's to be expected. But my challenge dealt with the presentation of actual news stories. Well, the entire year went by with repeated goading from me, and not one listener ever made one phone call or sent one email which illustrated even one instance of right wing bias in the presentation of news stories on the Fox News Channel. Not one. Turner faces a similar dilemma. He has no examples either, so what does he do? He does exactly what our friend Steve did! He goes the "Nazi" route! Yesterday Ted Turner was out there in front of God and all those people comparing the Fox News Channel, and it's superior ratings, to Hitler! Yeah, Ted says, Hitler was popular with the people too! So, Ted Turner is comparing people who watch Fox News Channel instead of CNN to the people who put Hitler in power in Germany! I particularly like the response to Ted's tirade from the Fox News Channel spokesman: "Ted Turner is understandably bitter having lost his ratings, his network and now his mind. We wish him well."

So do I, Ted. Enjoyed the lunch.

Oh .. one more thing. "Nazi" is actually an acronym for the National Socialist German Workers' Party. Ted Turner has publicly stated that he is a socialist. Hmmmmmm. Nazis were socialists ... Ted Turner is a socialist ....... Oh well, never mind.

Last year or the year before, the former Mr. Jane Fonda said that while Fox News had great ratings, he didn't care...ratings weren't everything. Now that's a message you, as CEO or Chairman or whatever the hell he is, want to send to the advertisers, shareholders, and employees of CNN, huh? "We're second rate, but hey...who cares?" If I'm an advertiser, I'm looking at maximum exposure to my paid ads, and here's Ted Turner telling me that the exposure I seek for my product or services is not to be found on his network...and he doesn't care! Needless to say, I will advertise elsewhere.

In 1996, Turner apologized to the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) for comments he made comparing FOX head Rupert Murdoch to Hitler. Teddie flunks "Political Discourse 101", which says that when you invoke the name of Hitler to prove a point for or against a political position, you have automatically lost the argument. Seems that leftists lose a lot of damned arguments these days, doesn't it?

Tuesday, January 25, 2005

Dr. Rice, the "liar"

They have all called Dr. Rice a liar over the last few days. They said they don't like being lied to. I don't like being lied to, either...no one does.

Then where in the hell were these people in 1998 when Clinton lied to the nation, under oath, about being Lewinskied (among other trivialities like sexual harrassment)? These same sops had no problem being lied to then!

Which means that to these scourges of society, being lied to is bad...unless the liar is a Democrat.

Hillary talks "sacrifice" while she schmoozes with elite at Trump wedding

"I don't see that thoughtful visionary direction that got us where we are today. The history of America is to make sacrifices today for a better tomorrow. The progress that then occurred moved everyone forward. That progress is at risk today," and then she said, "What are we investing in today. Frankly, it's not that hard cutting people's taxes." Do you want me to translate this for you? Hillary Clinton's vision, her definition of a "vision of greatness" is how much of your money can the Democrats get your hands on and spend. She says Bush isn't doing enough of that. "I don't see that thoughtful visionary direction that got us where we are today. The history of America is to make sacrifices today for a better tomorrow. The progress that then occurred moved everyone forward." She's talking about the New Deal. She's talking about rampant liberalism. She's talking about the kind of thing that health care, her idea of health care was a failure at doing, and that is nationalizing one-seventh of the U.S. economy.

More:

She has no clue what she's talking about. "The history of America is to make sacrifices today for a better tomorrow"? Let me tell you something, folks: This is why the Democrats are losing ground and they don't even know it. If adults with kids hear that they aren't making sacrifices today, they may have a few things to scream at Mrs. Clinton. For her to sit around and say Americans aren't making sacrifices today for a better tomorrow? What does she think American parents always do?

American parents are constantly sacrificing for their kids, for their kids' future, to put them through college, to do whatever they can to improve their lives. It's just that her version of sacrificing is you pay more taxes. You pay more taxes to Washington so Washington can get more powerful --- Democrats meaning Washington -- so they can get more powerful and spread more money around and buy more voters. I don't know what sacrifice Hillary Clinton has made whatsoever, other than to stick with her husband. That's probably a sacrifice in her mind, but beyond that what sacrifice is she making?

As a parent of two autistic children, I resent the hell out of this hateful socialist bitch telling me that I am not making sacrifices! I sacrifice a great deal every day to make sure my kids grow up as "normal" as possible, and the federal government isn't nannying them at all...and I damned sure don't want it to nanny them, either! But if Her Highness has it her way, my children will be assimilated into the Social Collective of her global "village"!

Reporting on Iraq

Only a dimwit would take the MSM seriously when it comes to reporting on the goings-on in Iraq today. Thomas Sowell's column makes a brilliant observation:

There are still people in the mainstream media who profess bewilderment that they are accused of being biased. But you need to look no further than reporting on the war in Iraq to see the bias staring you in the face, day after day, on the front page of the New York Times and in much of the rest of the media.

If a battle ends with Americans killing a hundred guerrillas and terrorists, while sustaining ten fatalities, that is an American victory. But not in the mainstream media. The headline is more likely to read: "Ten More Americans Killed in Iraq Today."

This kind of journalism can turn victory into defeat in print or on TV. Kept up long enough, it can even end up with real defeat, when support for the war collapses at home and abroad.

When the Viet-Commies admit that the U.S. media aided and abetted them into victory, it says three things: (1) our mainstream media (MSM) was (and still is) shamefully anti-American, perverted, and treasonous; (2) our media shaped and fostered domestic discontent towards the war, a war that could have been won; and (3) our politicians lacked backbone to properly fight the Vietnam War. They're trying (1) and (2) again, to see if they can bring about (3). After all, as Sowell points out:

Too many in the media today regard the reporting of the Vietnam war as one of their greatest triumphs. It certainly showed the power of the media -- but also its irresponsibility. Some in the media today seem determined to recapture those glory days by the way they report on events in the Iraq war.

They will fail. As they failed in 2000, 2002, and 2004 to influence elections, and as they failed in trying to disparage Afghanis for voting recently, and as they still disparage Iraqis in attempts to delay Iraqi elections...they will fail.

Monday, January 24, 2005

Byrd's problem with black folks

Robert Byrd has held up (or thwarted) three nominees of note during his shoddy lifetime: Justices Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas, and now Dr. Condi Rice. The common bond with these three distinguished individuals: they're all black. It seems as though the former Grand Kleagle of the KKK has a problem with African-Americans holding prominent positions in society.

On March 4, 2001, an interview with FOX News Sunday host Tony Snow was aired. In the interview Byrd was asked about race relations: "They are much, much better than they've ever been in my lifetime," Byrd said. "I think we talk about race too much. I think those problems are largely behind us... I just think we talk so much about it that we help to create somewhat of an illusion. I think we try to have good will. My old mom told me, 'Robert, you can't go to heaven if you hate anybody.' We practice that." Then Byrd warned: "There are white niggers. I've seen a lot of white niggers in my time; I'm going to use that word."

"We just need to work together to make our country a better country, and I'd just as soon quit talking about it so much."

Byrd's office later issued an apology.

"I apologize for the characterization I used on this program. The phrase dates back to my boyhood and has no place in today's society. As for my language, I had no intention of casting aspersions on anyone of another race."

American conservatives have pointed to Byrd's comments as evidence of a double standard in the treatment of Democratic and Republican political figures in regards to controversial statements about race (see Trent Lott, Rush Limbaugh). Limbaugh made this point loudly, more in reference to the Lott controversy than the one surrounding himself, when fellow Democratic Senator Christopher Dodd said in praise of Byrd, "There has never been a time in U.S. history that he would not have been right for. He would have been right for the Founding. He would have been right for the Civil War ..." Limbaugh stated that as Byrd had been a member of the Ku Klux Klan, he would have undoubtedly been on the side of the Confederate States of America, and hence slavery, during the Civil War, and wondered if Dodd really thought that was right. However, no general outcry in the mainstream media ensued, and the incident was hardly mentioned outside the venues of right-wing talk radio and FOX News -- a silence cited by those sources as evidence of a Liberal bias in mainstream media, protecting the Democrats (Dodd and Byrd) and yet loudly attacking Republicans (Lott and Thurmond) for a milder version of the same behavior.

A recent ill-informed visitor to this blog attempted a weak-ass defense of Byrd by invoking Trent Lott's poorly worded praise of Strom Thurmond two years ago. Considering that neither Thurmond nor Lott were ever in the KKK, it's a poor defense. But that's the point: while you'd be hard-pressed to find conservatives or Libertarians who will defend Thurmond's sordid past, you will have no trouble finding scores of liberals who will defend Senator "Sheets" Byrd. An argument can be made that Thurmond repented later in his life (another topic for another day). Considering Byrd's comments just four years ago, as well as his nominee hold-ups, no such argument can be made for Byrd.

Libs' exit poll hysteria

This, from the Union Leader of New Hampshire (you know, the blue state!):

About those exit polls:
Sorry, no Bush conspiracy here

SOME DEMOCRATS and liberals who refused to “moveon” after President Bush won reelection in November either fabricated or latched on to all sorts of conspiracy theories in their desperation and despair. None has been shown to have any basis in fact, and last week the very first conspiracy theory offered on Election Day was soundly crushed by a polling company investigation.

Exit polls on Election Day showed John Kerry with sizable leads in state after state. The polls so consistently predicted a Kerry victory that conservative columnist Bill Buckley told a group of friends in an ominous tone, “It shall be Kerry.”

When the votes were actually counted, however, their results differed greatly from the exit poll predictions. The discrepancy prompted immediate charges that the Bush campaign had rigged the votes and stolen the election.

Well, last week pollsters Joe Lenski of Edison Media Research and Warren Mitofsky of Mitofsky International (the companies that conducted Election Day polls for the Associated Press and major television news organizations) released their analysis of the exit polls. They found that the polls overstated Kerry’s support in 26 states and Bush’s support in four states. The final national poll predicted that Kerry would win the election.

The main reason for overstating Kerry’s support? Bush voters refused to answer pollsters’ questions in larger numbers than did Kerry voters. No evidence of voter fraud was found.

So much for the conspiracy.

So much, indeed. It's pretty damning when the exit poll companies themselves explain the discrepancy and reasons for their screw-ups. They would have been better served to have insisted that they were not wrong, and indeed, actual votes had been tampered with...they wouldn't have looked inept and incompetent. Kudos to them for their candor and honesty.

But hey...since when do liberals let a little thing like facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory?

At least THIS Kennedy didn't kill her!

A new documentary set to be released this week shows Ted Kennedy's son abusing an African-American female security guard at Los Angeles International Airport five years ago.

A clip in "Taking on the Kennedys," filmed by director Josh Seftel, captures Rep. Patrick Kennedy, D-RI, getting physical with security guard Della Patton as Patton was loading his luggage into a scanner.

Kennedy, who insisted he was in a rush to catch a flight back to Boston, allegedly pushed Patton and grabbed her by the arm when she informed him that she would have to inspect his carry-on bag because it wouldn't fit through the x-ray machine.
A video surveillance tape captured the March 26, 2000 incident but was never released.

The New York Post, however, reports that Seftel's documentary includes video of "Kennedy getting into a 'physical altercation' with a female airport security guard."

Rep. Kennedy, who wasn't charged in the incident, denied he had manhandled Patton. But in July 2000 he offered her $25,000 to settle the dispute. On the advice of her attorney, Greg Mallory, Patton rejected the offer.

She was later fired from her job, with Mallory claiming Rep. Kennedy was responsible.

Patton should be thankful that she didn't meet the same fate as her assailant's father's victim, Mary Jo Kopechne. At least Patton is alive to tell about it!

AP: US foresaw terror threats in 1970s

Friday, January 21, 2005

Nope...no bias at ABC News!

Brit Hume on Fox News Channel pointed out this interesting announcement on the ABC News website, the day before Bush's inauguration:

For a possible Inauguration Day story on ABC News, we are trying to find out if there any military funerals for Iraq war casualties scheduled for Thursday, Jan. 20. If you know of a funeral and whether the family might be willing to talk to ABC News, please fill out the form below.

Hume gave a hat tip to the blogger who brought national attention to it. ABC was beseiged with angry phone calls and e-mails, so they pulled it from their site. As of right now, no explanation (or proof of its prior existence) is even acknowledged on the site.

Hume continued:

Last night’s "Nightline" dealt with what the show called, "critics" who believe that voting irregularities in Ohio on Election Day cost John Kerry (search) the presidency.

Thursday, January 20, 2005

Bush's inauguration party

Bush's inauguration party is a bad idea! Why, people are dying in Iraq and tsunami-ravaged southeast Asia, and Bush is throwing a multi-million dollar shindig today!

Such is the mindset of today's liberals. But as usual, Coulter nails them on their hypocrisy. Her column:

In what the New York Times called Angola's "worst crisis" in "nearly 30 years" in December 1992, the country erupted into civil war. By January 1993, the streets were piled with thousands of dead bodies. In the prior year, hundreds of thousands had died of starvation in Somalia. Millions more were still at risk.

Also in 1993, January floods left dozens dead and thousands homeless in Tijuana, Mexico. Russia was, according to a New York Times editorial, on the brink of disaster, facing economic circumstances like those "that helped bring forth Hitler." Nine people were killed in a volcano in Colombia in mid-January, including American scientists. In Bosnia, according to the Times, hundreds had died of starvation and exposure in a matter of days.

"It has all been so much fun," Frank Rich and Maureen Dowd gushed in the New York Times in January 1993. It was Bill Clinton's one-week inaugural celebration. "Is it too much to ask that it go on forever?" (For those who loved America, the next eight years would only seem to go on forever.)

Rich and Dowd quoted Hollywood agent Karen Russell, saying: "I'm in this fantasy world. I haven't slept. I'm punch drunk. ... I just feel like I'm in this place called Clinton-land" – which, if it were a theme park, could bill itself as "the sleaziest place on Earth!" Russell, they said, "spoke for everyone."

While dead bodies rotted in the streets of Angola and Somalia, the only "dead soldiers" in evidence in Clinton-land were the empty Cristal bottles lining the parade route. The most massive relief efforts that week took place at the rows of portable toilets circling each site of drunken Clintonista revelry.

Instead of having the usual Inauguration Day in 1993, Clinton had an "Inauguration Week," with high-tech pageantry, large-screen TVs on the mall, Hollywood direction and, indeed, half of Hollywood. The amount of money that would have been saved just by holding the inauguration in Brentwood could have averted the Rwandan tragedy Clinton ignored just a few years later.

The spokesman for Clinton's 1993 Inaugural Committee said the inaugural events would cost about $25 million – largesse exceeded only by the $50 million Ken Starr was forced to spend when "Clintonland" turned out to be populated with felons. Think of all the starving children in Angola, Somalia, Bosnia and elsewhere that $25 million could have fed! And don't even get me started on Michael Moore's "on location" food budget!

I wouldn't mention it, except for the Times' recent editorial snippily remarking that the amount of foreign aid to tsunami victims offered by the United States within the first few days of the disaster was "less than half of what Republicans plan to spend on the Bush inaugural festivities." By that logic, why hold the Golden Globes, the Academy Awards, or spend money on restaurants and theater productions praised in the New York Times? That money could go to tsunami victims!

A letter writer to the Times redoubled the Times' bile, claiming to be "embarrassed for our country" on account of the government's "pathetic initial offer of aid" to the tsunami victims. Yet he was still willing to throw away 37 cents on a postage stamp to send his letter – money that could have been spent on the relief effort! (One strongly suspects the letter writer was embarrassed for his country long before the tsunami hit and will remain so long after.)

Another letter writer suggested the first lady wear a used dress to the inauguration to "honor the young people who are dying in her husband's misbegotten war." (To honor John Kerry's position on Iraq, Mrs. Bush would have to order an expensive gown and then, after it was delivered, decide she didn't want to pay for it.)

Hollywood liberals could not be reached for comment on the cost of the inauguration because they were being fitted for gowns and jewelry worth millions of dollars in anticipation of Oscar night.

Speaking of which, I just remembered: George Soros is worth $7 billion! Couldn't he get by on, say, $1 billion and donate the rest to the tsunami victims? If gun owners have to explain why they "need" a so-called "assault rifle," shouldn't Soros have to explain why he "needs" $7 billion? Last year, Soros announced that the central focus of his life would be removing Bush from office. Would that Soros could refocus that energy on alleviating the suffering of tsunami victims.

"Good enough for me, but not for thee"...eh, liberals? Not surprising. Your ideas, roundly rejected by the overwhelming bulk of Americans, are even rejected by you when it comes to practicing what you preach!

By the way, the overwhelming majority of money to pay for Bush's inauguration come from private donors. Yes, the rich. Then again, when Clinton was wined, dined, and 69'ed by his rich friends, it's all good, huh?

Rice vs. Kerry

Kerry voted against Dr. Rice's confirmation before the Senate committee. I predict that he'll vote for her when the vote comes before the entire Senate. That way, he can say "I actually did vote against Condi Rice...before I voted for her!"

Rice vs. KKK

As if it weren't bad enough that Condi Rice had to grow up in fear of the Klan when she was a child in Birmingham, AL, she now has to face the Klan again as an adult. Enter former Klansman and current U.S. Senator, Democrat Robert Byrd of West Virginia.

"Senator Robert Byrd, an outspoken critic of the Iraq war, announced late [Wednesday] that he would not allow the Senate to approve Ms. Rice without a few days of consideration of her lengthy testimony, and at least a token debate on the floor," reports the New York Times.

Sen. Byrd's maneuver came just hours after the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved her nomination by a vote of 16 to 2. The two naysayers were, not surprisingly, election loser John Kerry and new pointwoman for the loony left, Babs Boxer.

Though Robert "Sheets" Byrd "officially" left the Klan in 1943, he filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights Act for 14 straight hours. And three years after he said he'd left his white-sheeted brethren behind, he wrote to Georgia's Grand Imperial Wizard, urging, "The Klan is needed today as never before."

Sen. Byrd was also a fierce opponent of desegregating the military, complaining in one letter: "I should rather die a thousand times and see old glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again than see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen of the wilds."

Interesting that while Republicans are supposed to be racist merely for opposing affirmative actions and racial quotas (never mind the fact that real racist Republicans like David Duke are loudly rejected by the GOP), to the best of my knowledge, there aren't any current GOP Senators who opposed the Civil Rights Act or were in the KKK. So while the nation is about to have its first black female Secretary of State, the Dems are embracing their bigots.

Wednesday, January 19, 2005

The "New Boxer Rebellion"

Did anyone see the grilling that Dr. Rice got from her Leftness from the Loony Coast, Senator Barbara Boxer? It was quite shameful, really.

Boxer impugned Rice's intelligence and integrity with the content and tone of her questions. This, of course, is the same Barbara Boxer that cried when Bush received the Ohio electors...and the same Boxer who was the only Senator to vote against accepting the Ohio electors.

Barbara Boxer is officially the designated kook mascot of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. With her declaration of war on Bush, Rice, and the majority of Americans who voted for Bush, as well as her declaration of war on normal America, she has begun the "New Boxer Rebellion."

Michael Goodwin of the NY Daily News has a great column that can be summed up like this:

Boxer and Kennedy are living in the past, back when it was okay for limousine liberals to tell the rest of us how to live. And maybe they're going a little nuts with frustration because white-bread Bush was reelected and he's the one nominating the first Hispanic attorney general and the first black female secretary of state.

Whatever's bugging them, Kennedy and Boxer need to get a grip. They're embarrassing themselves and defining their party as a bunch of sour-grapes, out-of-touch losers. All the talk about Dems moving back to the political center and working with Bush is being demolished every time these two open their potty mouths.

Of course, there is another, even more scary possibility: Maybe Kennedy and Boxer actually speak for the majority of their party.

In that case, Dems are in more trouble than they can ever imagine.

Makes me even gladder that I'm not, nor could I ever be, a liberal...I'm just not that unhinged or perverted.

Tuesday, January 18, 2005

Kerry...delayed reaction

John Kerry made a gracious concession speech the day after he lost the election. In typical Kerry fashion, he's flip-flopped again.

At a Boston MLK Day breakfast, Kerry gratuitously invoked Martin Luther King Jr.'s legacy and made up reports of voter disenfranchisement. Never mind that he lost by 115,000+ votes, confirmed by a statewide recount.

He reiterated that he decided not to challenge the election results, but "thousands of people were suppressed in the effort to vote." Uh, no they weren't...unless you count people who didn't vote because they didn't like him. I guess now the left is trying to claim that people who stay at home and away from the polls were disenfranchised by a lack of good candidates to choose from!

Kerry alleged: "Voting machines were distributed in uneven ways. In Democratic districts, it took people four, five, eleven hours to vote, while Republicans (went) through in 10 minutes - same voting machines, same process, our America," he said.

He fails to mention that (a) in those same Democratic districts (counties), the supervisor of elections were also Democrats; (b) voting machines are handled by each county's elections office, NOT by the state's Secretary of State...that's why some counties use scanners, others use punchcards, etc.; and (c) whether it's one hour or eleven hours, once you are in line before the polls close, you are allowed to vote...period, end of discussion.

So if I understand liberals correctly, a voter is disenfranchised if he/she is inconvenienced in trying to vote. A voter is disenfranchised if the Democratic elections supervisors don't set up enough voting machines (presumably, they didn't set up enough voting machines that they could tamper with).

While Sen. John Kerry has made it clear he's interested in running for president again in 2008, party insiders aren't very enthusiastic about the prospect. "Kerry has been reaching out very aggressively and finding that many of the people that he automatically thought would be on board are not," NBC's Campbell Brown told "The Chris Matthews Show" on Sunday.

Iraqis in U.S. voting in Iraqi election...here!

There are 240,000 Iraqis in the United States that are eligible to vote in the upcoming Iraqi elections. To ensure their participation, polling places have been set up throughout the country in Maryland, Los Angeles, Nashville, Chicago and Detroit. Yesterday, the first batch of folks started to trickle in. Now, keep in mind that the mainstream media in this country wants you to be convinced that democracy in Iraq is doomed, the election will be a failure and the war in Iraq was a mistake. With that in mind, let's take a look at what some of the Iraqis in the United States are doing to be sure they are registered to vote:

Nouman Shubbar, a Philadelphia police sergeant, drove 2 1/2 hours just so he could register to vote. Said Mr. Shubbar: "It's a historical event. I'm very happy, and I'm very proud that for the first time we have free elections." He will make the same drive in a couple weeks to actually cast his ballot.

Osama Al-Moosawi lives in Delaware and made the drive to Maryland because he didn't want to miss out on the chance to vote. He was speechless, and even posed for pictures in front of the registration table. "It's amazing, unbelievable," he said.

67-year-old Abdul Al-Haddad drove six hours from Raleigh, Carolina to New Carrollton, Maryland to register to vote. Speaking through a translator, he said ''I feel I am responsible for my country, to build a free Iraq."

This is the first free election Iraq will have had in 50 years. Just look at the faces of these Iraqi expatriates going so far to be able to vote in these elections. Despite what you read in the media and hear from the Democrats, these people want freedom and democracy. And they are going to get it, despite the naysayers who continue to say it will never happen, that it's impossible.

Compare these Iraqi expatriates to Americans. How many of your neighbors would drive two and one-half hours just to register? We had people who wouldn't wait one hour to vote! And now these people are whining that they were "disenfranchised." While the Iraqis stand up to terrorists and Islamic thugs who will kill to keep them from voting, John Kerry complains that Americans who didn't have the time to wait in line for an hour, or whose legs hurt so they went home, were "suppressed."

Oh, and by the way....is Hillary Clinton going to tell all of these Iraqi women that they were better off under Saddam Hussein? She said that, you know.

Of course, if the liberals had it their way, Iraqis would still be getting raped, tortured, oppressed, and killed by the Saddam Hussein regime. Libs feel that Iraqis are people who do not deserve and are not entitled to the same rights that Americans enjoy. Those rights are bestowed upon us by God, not government...a message that liberals do not yet understand or accept.

Monday, January 17, 2005

"Election Determines Fate of Nation"

During the election last year, I referenced a column by a professor at Central Washington University named Dr. Mathew Manweller. His column was entitled "Election Determines Fate of Nation". It's right here.

Anyway, he now has his own web site dedicated to "Essays, Articles, and Opinions" related to the news du jour. I figured that since his column was so brilliant, I would pass on his new site's URL for interested readers: www.mattmanweller.com. You haven't read his column yet? Well, read it now! Yes, I know the election is over, but it still makes for great posterior reading!

What if Sunnis boycott Iraqi election?

I have an observation about this purported Sunni boycott of Iraqi elections. The left (along with Sunnis) think that if any segment of the Iraqi population boycott the upcoming Iraqi elections, then the resulting government would be illegitimate. Huh?

Do you know what I would give to ensure that liberals in America boycott future elections? Would anyone, save the MSM, think that if any segment of America refused by their own free will to vote in any of our elections, the results would be invalid? Uh, no...if I turn on the TV and see that Bush defeated Kerry 75% - 45%, I wouldn't think "Well, Bush hardly has a mandate! After all, the liberals stayed home!"

If people refuse to get involved in an election, they are subject to the rule of people they may despise. If you refuse to vote, you deserve whatever government you get.

Blue bracelets

Berns Rothchild, a NYC liberal (pardon the redundancy) who professed her shame in America by voting against her precious John F'ing Kerry, has come up with this idea of wearing blue bracelets. The whole "blue state" thing, I guess. Anyway, hat tip to Neal Boortz for this observation about those who don the bracelets:

1. The blue bracelets will easily identify people who believe that America is great because of its government instead of freedom.

2. The bracelets will identify people who believe that any price paid for freedom is too much, and that living peacefully as a slave is better than fighting to be free.

3. The bracelets will identify people who believe in the mob, and not in the individual, and who have enlisted wholeheartedly in the war against individualism.

4. We will be able to identify the people who believe that America should be a country of equal results rather than a system that guarantees equal opportunity.

5. People who believe that the government should own and control our retirement accounts will be identified by that flash of blue on their wrists.

6. We will be able to recognize those who believe that accomplishment should be punished while laziness and poor decision making should be rewarded.

"See? B.S.!" back to its old tricks

CBS News turned over its entire "Face the Nation" broadcast on Sunday to inveterate Bush-basher Ted Kennedy, after refusing a White House request that they also include a Republican to rebut Kennedy's bloviations.

"The White House was happy to put Dan Bartlett or somebody else on that program and CBS said, 'Thank you, No,'" reported Brit Hume on "Fox News Sunday."

The CBS snub comes just a week after the network promised Bartlett, who recently moved from Communications Director to the White House counsel's job, that they'd stop skewing their coverage against the president.
According to Broadcasting & Cable, CBS News President Andrew Heyward traveled to D.C. and personally assured Bartlett that "neither CBS News nor [Dan] Rather had a vendetta against the White House."

"From here on out [CBS] would do everything it could to be fair and balanced,” he reportedly pledged.

Uh-huh...not allowing a rebuttal to a drunk, womanizing murderer is "fair and balanced", huh?

Friday, January 14, 2005

DiFi to propose abolishing Electoral College

DiFi (that would be Senator Dianne Feinstein from California) said that she will propose an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to ban the Electoral College and implement a national popular vote in determining the presidency. Full story here. The article tries to give her idea credence by mentioning that it has the support of RINO (Republican in Name Only) Lincoln Chafee, a RINO from a liberal state (Rhode Island) who detests Bush.

Anyway, it's not going to happen, for a few reasons:

1. It would require that virtually every "battleground state" (such as Missouri, Wisconsin, Iowa, New Hampshire, West Virgina, Ohio, Florida, etc.) give up its importance and quadriennial candidate courting. They like the attention, so they're not having it.

2. It would require all of the smaller states, whether battleground or not, to consider giving up their clout. Bush barely won the electoral vote in 2000, and it can be argued that the Dakotas, Wyoming, Idaho, etc., played a huge role in that. Granted, Rhode Island may want to go along with it, but only because they don't like the outcome of the last two elections.

3. Outside of California and New England, nobody likes California and New England, with their (generally speaking, clearly not applicable to all) sense of self-righteousness, haughtiness, rudeness, and lack of regard for all things outside of their blue spheres. Anything that we red states can do to continue sticking it to the loony left states, we're all for doing it.

It's for reason #3 that DiFi wants the EC abolished...that, and she doesn't like the current president. She fails to consider, though, that Dems have benefitted from the EC, too. In 1992, Bill Clinton won the presidency with an anemic 42% of the popular vote. Embarrassing, except for the fact that he won a whopping 370 electoral votes, giving him electoral legitimacy that conservatives wanted to deny him.

What's annoying, though, and typical of liberal disdain for our country and its origins, is DiFi's condescending quote: "During the founding years of the republic, the Electoral College may have been a suitable system, but today it is flawed and amounts to national elections being decided in several battleground states."

May have been suitable? Why, how did this country ever get going without DiFi's brilliance around?! Those morons Jefferson, Madison, et al didn't know what they were doing, I guess. May?

Also, DiFi's wrong about the elections being decided in several battleground states. Uh, DiFi...the election is decided in all states, not just battlegrounds! She's letting her frustrations with the last two elections cloud her thinking (which I though was supposed to be a liberal's strong point?).

Finally, this is a once-in-a-generation experience. For only four times in the history of our country, we've had different electoral vote and popular vote winners. States decide the presidency, not metropolitan population centers. If states want to divvy up their electoral votes differently, they can: Nebraska and Maine do, and Colorado voted on it...and opted against it.

So is this really necessary, other than to placate disgruntled liberal constituents? If so, knock yourself out, DiFi...but realize that you have a snowball's chance in Hell of getting this amendment voted on, much less ratified.

Thursday, January 13, 2005

"Vince Lombardi" Democrats?

Former NFL coaching great Vince Lombardi is famous for saying "Winning isn't everything. It's the only thing!" It looks like Democrats are thinking the same thing.

Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, the new chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, told The New York Times: "Some people argue about old Democrats and new Democrats. I'm a Vince Lombardi Democrat. Winning is everything."

OK, he botched the quote, but hey...at least their thirst for power is now transparent, by their own admission! Gee, that kind of warm and fuzzy inspirational rhetoric is certain to get more red-staters on board, huh?

"American interests be damned...we want to win for our party first, and the country second!", they seem to be saying.

Washingtonians want revote for governor

Interesting report from NBC affiliate KHQ-TV in Spokane. According to the report:

An Exclusive KHQ NewsPoll conducted by Survey USA shows, 62% in the State of Washington say there should be a new election to re-vote on the governor's race.The survey was conducted January 10 and 11, 2005, and 36% statewide say there should not be a new election.

A re-vote is supported by 76% of Republicans and 64% of Independents.In Eastern Washington 59% of those polled back a re-vote, 61% in the Seattle area back a re-vote.

Democrats oppose a re-vote, but even among Democrats, it is close:45% support holding a new election, 52% say they oppose it.

This is a survey of 600 adult respondents from Washington State.Overall results considered significant +/- 4%.Results may not add to 100%, because percentages are rounded to whole numbers.

Granted, a court will decide the matter, not public opinion. But it is interesting that even nearly half of Democrats want a new election, as do nearly 2/3 of liberal Seattle! No word yet on if the demographics of the poll included Democrat constituencies like the dead, multiple voters, illegal aliens, post-election ballot manufacturers, or those who mailed out military ballots too late.

Ted Kennedy and other liberals want us to lose in Iraq

From Neal Boortz:

Kennedy was telling us (again) yesterday that Iraq is George Bush's Vietnam. In making that statement there is not one bit of doubt in my mind that Ted Kennedy gave virtual aid and comfort to Islamic insurgents in Iraq and to Islamofascist terrorists around the world. There is no doubt in my mind that Kennedy's statement yesterday so encouraged and emboldened the insurgency in Iraq that American servicemen will die as a result. Ted Kennedy doesn't seem to be satisfied with the death of Mary Jo Kopechne, he wants more .. or so it seems. If Ted Kennedy cut a notch in his bed for every death of an American serviceman or woman at the hands of an Iraqi insurgent encouraged by his remarks, and by leftist opposition to the liberation of the people of Iraq, he would be sleeping in sawdust.

Iraq is Bush's Vietnam? We lost in Vietnam. We ran. Is that the message Kennedy is sending here? Is that the solution he's calling for again? The media took a U.S. victory, the Tet offensive, and turned it into a rout of, not by the Americans. This actually seems to be what Kennedy wants ... what a lot of Democrats want. I truly believe that they actually want to see the United States leave Iraq with its tail between its legs. The Iraqi people? Who cares? The future of peace in the Middle East? Again, who cares? What is important to Democrats here .. what is more important than establishing a beachhead of peace in the most dangerous region of the world .. what is more important to the left is disgracing George Bush and disgracing the Republican Party so that they can return to their rightful position of dominance in Washington. Ted Kennedy and his sickening sycophants are actually willing, if not eager, to endanger every man woman and child in the United States -- to actually increase the threat level of another and probably more horrible terrorist attack on our soil -- if it means they can take back what they believe their birthright -- the right to rule the roost in Washington.

Faith vs. hallucinations

The president is catching hell from liberals and from the media (pardon the redundancy) regarding his recent statement that "I don't see how you can be president without a relationship with the Lord." Gasp! There he goes with that God thing again!

Yet when her Highness, Hillary Clinton, once confessed to consulting the ghost of Eleanor Roosevelt...why, how brilliant! How avant garde! What a fascinating woman this Hillary is.

Tuesday, January 11, 2005

Forward-thinking Republicans? Dream on...

Recently, the president said he wanted to address the need to revamp Social Security. One of the ideas being batted about is allowing younger workers today to divert a small portion of their Social Security payroll taxes into private retirement accounts that they can grow and pass on to their families when they die. SS will not do this.

Anyway, Bush is having resistance within his own party. No surprise there, since the Gimme Generation of the AARP has scared them into thinking about political (rather than practical) fallout. But how's this for total cowardice and self-preservation?

Most alarming to White House officials, some congressional Republicans are panning the president's plan — even before it is unveiled. "Why stir up a political hornet's nest .... when there is no urgency?" said Rep. Rob Simmons (Conn.), who represents a competitive district. "When does the program go belly up? 2042. I will be dead by then."

Emphasis mine. Hey, thanks, Rob! To hell with the rest of us, since you will have long since been worm food by then! To hell with your kids and grandkids...let the little bastards fend for themselves, having contributed their whole lives to this federal Ponzi scheme and have nothing to show for it...you won't be here for it to affect you! So it's all good, right?

How come when Enron blows everyone's pensions to hell, then the wrath of the government comes down with intense ferocity...yet when that same hypocritical government does the same thing to us in 40 - 50 years, it will suffer no ramifications for it? After all, you do know that federal courts have ruled that SS benefits are not guaranteed, don't you?

That means that not only are your benefits not guaranteed, but that the government went to court to lay that decision down now so when the day of reckoning comes, they can look back and say "The courts agreed, we're under no obligation to pay you anything. Your payroll taxes used for SS were never earmarked for you."

And as long as today's politicians have neither the stomach nor the sack to address the problem (since, by their own admission, it's not their problem), you can bet that those of you (myself included) born after 1965 will see a U.F.O. before we will see one red cent of Social Security benefits.

Monday, January 10, 2005

Heads roll at CBS (pronounced "See? B.S.!")

Four heads rolled today at CBS as a result of the work they did on behalf of the Kerry-Edwards campaign last fall. What work was that? You know, the umpteenth story on Bush's service in the National Guard in the 1970's...the one based on documents forged by someone with a political axe to grind against Bush. Said forger, Bill Burkett, was referred to by Dan Rather as an "unimpeachable" source...who was nearly immediately impeached as a source.

What's not surprising to me was that none of the canned were Andrew Heyward, CBS News president. Nor Dan Rather, probably because he is already quitting. But what is surprising to me is that one of the canned was Mary Mapes, the producer of the 60 Minutes II segment in question.

No, I know she most certainly deserved to be fired. I'm just surprised they actually went through with it.

The independent panel asked to investigate the "60 Minutes Wednesday" report said that CBS, in its "myopic zeal" to be first with the story, sacrificed accuracy and did not meet CBS's internal standards.

"The combination of a new '60 Minutes Wednesday' management team, great deference given to a highly respected producer and the network's news anchor, competitive pressures, and a zealous belief in the truth of the segment seem to have led many to disregard some fundamental journalistic principles," the report concluded.

Emphasis mine. They wanted to believe it, so they ran with it. The only thing that makes me mad about the report, though I knew it was coming, is that the scandal was portrayed as journalistic sloppiness instead of a politically-motivated hit piece...of which there is ample evidence to suggest such.

At any rate, four sacrificial lambs have been slaughtered. Liberals will rejoice this as proof that CBS can be trusted to do the right thing and will clean their house of the scoundrels, and that it exonerates Rather and Heyward from any conspiratorial roles they may have played.

Is Social Security OK? Dems didn't think so in 1999, but do now!

In 1999, Bill Clinton wanted to use the phony budget "surplus" to "shore up Social Security" (a pet phrase used by Democrats in their talking points to the media). Clinton, like other Democrats, fought tax cuts tooth and nail...the thought that we idiots might get to keep more of our own money instead of trusting the liberal elites in DC to buy more $1000 hammers was offensive!

Anyway, we were told when Clinton was president that Social Security needed to be salvaged and preserved, and that if we did nothing to "shore it up", it would go belly-up in two to three decades before 2050. He needed to sell this idea to the American people so when he would be portrayed as a tax-and-spend liberal, he could say that he supported tax cuts only after Social Security had been fixed. According to a 1999 article by the liberal New York Times:

Under his new plan, Clinton will say that Social Security can be put on sound footing until 2053, nearly two decades beyond the point it will run into trouble if nothing is done. And he will call for Medicare to get enough new financing to keep it solvent until 2027, an improvement of about a dozen years beyond current predictions.

Emphasis is mine. In short, with surpluses as far as the eye could see in 1999, the government needed our tax money and couldn't "afford" to give us our money back because we needed it to fix Social Security.

And today?

Why, nothing is wrong with Social Security! According to Charlie Rangel, Democrat from Harlem, in this article:

There is no looming crisis in Social Security, and Congress should not rush to create private accounts, Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y. said Saturday.

"The facts prove that there is no imminent crisis with Social Security. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says Social Security can pay full benefits for nearly 50 years," Rangel said in the Democratic weekly radio address.

Leave it alone! It will be fine for the next 50 years, i.e. around 2055, if we do nothing to "shore it up" today.

These same "facts" that show that Social Security will be fine...were they the same ones that Rangel, Clinton, and their ilk were using back in 1999 to show that it would go belly-up between 2020 - 2030?

In short, with deficits as far as the eye could see in 2005, the government doesn't need private, semi-private, or any other kinds of savings accounts in order to fix Social Security, because Social Security isn't even broken.

So...no tax cuts in 1999 (Democrat president), because we need to "fix" Social Security by 2020 or so. No private accounts in 2005 (Republican president), because we don't need to fix what won't be broken until 2050. Since when do defecits extend the life of Social Security?

Liberals simply cannot stomach the idea that tax cuts and private accounts put money (and yes, responsibility) into your hands. More specifically, the more power you have over your own life and finances, the less power the government has...and thus, the less we need elected (and appointed) government officials to "take care" of us.

Sunday, January 09, 2005

GOP contests Washington guv race...in part, due to dead voters

According to Seattle's newspaper, a minimum of eight dead people voted in liberal Seattle in the November (though ongoing) Washington state governor's race. Amazingly, Seattle's elections supervisor has the audacity to assert that these dead voters "are not indications of fraud"!

These are not people who voted absentee before the election, then died before the election. Those votes should count, of course. Nope, these are people who died before absentee ballots were even mailed out. Story here.

I guess it is, in part, due to dead voters (the fraudulent behavior of Seattle elections officials notwithstanding) that the state GOP is contesting the election.

And did anyone else enjoy all the "found" ballots coming out of King County? I wish I had some extra time, I would have set up a pool. I could have made a ton! How many ballots will be "found" on which days?

That was so predictable, it reminded me of an exchange from that chick baseball movie, the one with Tom Hanks.

"What if at a key moment in the game my, my uniform bursts open and, uh, oops., my bosoms come flying out? That, that might draw a crowd, right? "

"What if at a key moment in the election, we open a closet door and, uh, oops., a thousand ballots come flying out? That could tip an election, right?"

Friday, January 07, 2005

What passes for a "fair election" for Democrats?

Let's see here...

George W. Bush wins Ohio by over 115,000 votes, and the Democrats in the House and Senate smell fraud...even protest the electors. Verdict: unfair Republican win.

Governor-pretend Christine Gregoire wins a count-until-you've-made-enough-votes third recount in the Washington state governor's race by 129 manufactured votes, and the state Democratic party (along with their sycophant mouthpieces at Seattle's daily paper) portray the election as (and these are their words, emphasis mine) "the most accurate election in state history.". Verdict: fair Democrat win.

How to Interrogate Terrorists

City Journal has an excellent, albeit lengthy, entry about the origins of the purported "torture" memo (which is anything but). If you have 10 minutes to read it, please do so, as it is excellent insight into the interrogation tactics we've used (and not used) thus far. It is also an excellent account as to the behavior of our enemies in captivity, and how they have responded with violence and hostility.

I guess liberals think one collective group hug will make them cooperate, huh? Or maybe if terrorists just had more money in their homelands, they wouldn't try to smite us infidels, right?

Anyway, here's an excerpt, and again, please read it if you have time...you won't be sorry:

Human Rights Watch, the ICRC, Amnesty International, and the other self-professed guardians of humanitarianism need to come back to earth—to the real world in which torture means what the Nazis and the Japanese did in their concentration and POW camps in World War II; the world in which evil regimes, like those we fought in Afghanistan and Iraq, don’t follow the Miranda rules or the Convention Against Torture but instead gas children, bury people alive, set wild animals on soccer players who lose, and hang adulterous women by truckloads before stadiums full of spectators; the world in which barbarous death cults behead female aid workers, bomb crowded railway stations, and fly planes filled with hundreds of innocent passengers into buildings filled with thousands of innocent and unsuspecting civilians. By definition, our terrorist enemies and their state supporters have declared themselves enemies of the civilized order and its humanitarian rules. In fighting them, we must of course hold ourselves to our own high moral standards without, however, succumbing to the utopian illusion that we can prevail while immaculately observing every precept of the Sermon on the Mount. It is the necessity of this fallen world that we must oppose evil with force; and we must use all the lawful means necessary to ensure that good, rather than evil, triumphs.

Richard...who?

A followup on the prior posting on self-proclaimed international affairs expert AND self-proclaimed global mouthpiece, Richard Gere...

Palestinians are asking..."Richard...who?" "Who's that?" According to Reuters:

But many voters, already struggling with the labyrinthine politics of the West Bank and Gaza, say they have never heard of the actor who swept Debra Winger off her feet as a dashing Navy officer in the 1982 film "An Officer and a Gentleman" and were even less interested when they were told he's an American.

Thursday, January 06, 2005

Those "illiberal liberals'!

This piece, from OpinionJournal.com, illustrates one of the glaring lies and myths perpetuated by the left: they are the ideology of "tolerance"!

In a Jerusalem Post op-ed piece, Emanuele Ottolenghi, a professor at Oxford, describes his search for a roommate in Washington, where he is serving a stint as a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. He started by answering roommate ads on the Internet. He would begin a correspondence with the advertiser, but "at the mention of the AEI, somehow, communications would abruptly end."

Then he tried taking out his own ad. A 29-year-old graduate student replied, sending photos of her apartment. Ottolenghi noticed Kedwards stickers in the photo:

Having casually surmised a causal correlation between my outing as an AEI affiliate and the lack of further response, I acted preemptively. "Would you cope with a neo-conservative pro-Bush European working at the AEI, though?" I asked gingerly, suggesting we could agree not to talk politics.

[The prospective roomie replied:] "I just returned from working on the Kerry campaign, and I'm a lesbian. Unfortunately, I don't think I could live with anyone who supports an administration so intolerant of gay people. I know that's probably ridiculous, but I just can't do it."

Not expecting such closed-mindedness from a liberal, I retorted that my views on homosexuality were perfectly tuned to liberal standards. But that only earned me a patronizing lesson.

"Nah, I didn't assume you were intolerant on the subject of gay people. Europe is a more enlightened place than here, that's for sure. You must understand, though, that we just lost a very tough and very emotional election. It's my opinion that the Bush administration won this election by conniving rural Americans [sic] (those least likely to be affected by terrorism, and those least likely to encounter a gay person) that they should be afraid of terrorism and gay marriage."

The would-be roommate told Ottolenghi that she had never met an antigay Republican, and even said she socialized with some GOP members. (Why, some of my best friends . . .) But, she said, "Regardless of what we might have in common, or the type of people I'm willing to socialize with, I couldn't have a Bush supporter living in my home!"

Now of course a man's home is his castle, and this young lady was perfectly within her rights to reject Ottolenghi on political grounds. But this anecdote illustrates a truth of which just about any right-leaning resident of a big city is well aware: that these days "liberals" are a lot less tolerant than they like to think.

"Liberals love America like O.J. loved Nicole"

Damn...I wish I had come up with that observation! Ann Coulter, reviled by the left and loved by normal Americans, comes to this conclusion in her weekly column.

This gem from it:

In December 2002, Murray (ed. Democrat Senator Patty Murray from Washington state) was extolling Osama bin Laden's good works in the Middle East, informing a classroom of students: "He's been out in these countries for decades building roads, building schools, building infrastructure, building day-care facilities, building health-care facilities, and the people are extremely grateful. It made their lives better." What does Murray say about bin Laden's charity toward the (mostly Muslim) tsunami victims?

Speaking of world leaders admired by liberals, why isn't Fidel Castro giving the tsunami victims some of that terrific medical care liberals tell us he has been providing the people of Cuba?

Stipulating that liberals love America – which apparently depends on what the meaning of "love" is – do they love America as much as they love bin Laden and Castro?

Ted Kennedy on "torture"

While Ted Kennedy interrogates our next Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, about whether or not we're making life too uncomfortable for the enemy combatants in captivity who want us dead, it makes me wonder something:

While Teddy Kennedy left Mary J. Kopechne underwater in his car for about 8 hours, was what he allowed her to endure defined as "torture"? While she lay submerged as the water slowly enveloped her and eventually entombed her, does anyone wonder if she suffered the same level of stress as an al Qaeda combatant draped in an Israeli flag listening to Bon Jovi cranked a little too loudly?

That Kennedy, too, is not wearing an orange jumpsuit is proof that there are two different justice systems in America: that for the have, and that for the have-nots.

Wednesday, January 05, 2005

Dems challenging Ohio electors?

Boy, these idiots just don't get it. I really don't have a problem with their latest antics, since the more they show their asses about Ohio (and their massive Election Day losses), the more they will continue to lose elections. Americans are getting a first-hand glimpse at how low the liberals will sink in order to steal an election they didn't win. They're seeing it in Washington state with the "count-til-you-win" heist strategy employed by Christine "Fraudoire", and now they're seeing it in Ohio. Full story here.

According to Democratic Congressman John Conyers of Michigan, "We have found numerous, serious election irregularities in the Ohio presidential election. There are ample grounds for challenging the electors from the state of Ohio."

Bring it on, losers!

Do you know what constitutes "serious election irregularities" to them? The fact that more people actually voted for Bush! No WAY could that have really happened! Never mind that he won the state by 118,599 votes after a statewide manual recount. Never mind that he won what was once more important to liberals (the national popular vote) by 3.5 million and 3%. Hell no, there absolutely must be a rational explanation for why Bush won a state that he also won four years ago, and that reason must be vote fraud!

(Sidebar: Isn't it funny that in 2000, Gore's 500,000 vote popular vote win was "substantial" and the Electoral College "antiquated" to liberals...yet in 2004, a true 51% majority, 3.5 million and 3% popular vote win "hardly represents a mandate and isn't really that big", and the Electoral College is now en vogue again?)

Good grief, you would think that the masters of the vote fraud game would be able to smell real vote fraud! I mean, the election of 1960 was rife with it by Dems in Texas, Missouri, and Illinois. So was Gore's dirty work in Wisconsin, New Mexico, and Iowa in 2000. Not to mention dead Indians in South Dakota for Senator Tim Johnson in 2002. As well as the aforementioned 2004 WA governor's race. The list is endless. And these charlatains want to accuse the good guys of fraud? Uh, "Hello, Mr. Pot! I'm Mr. Kettle!"

Looks like the state's GOP is going to contest the election. Considering that they won the count and recount, until a manual recount mined enough votes for the Democrat to win by 139, seems like they should...though I don't know what good it would do.

But it seems to me that in liberal Seattle's county (King County), somebody should find it more than odd that there were 3,539 more ballots than voters!

If you're keeping up with this (and Lord knows that I am), here's a link to the story.

Richard Gere's global arrogance

Wow. I knew Gere was a leftist loony when, in 2001, he was roundly booed in NYC when he suggested to the audience that we "rise above" the concept of retribution and show the world how peaceful we can be. NYC just had 3,000+ of its citizens slaughtered by blood-thirsty Islamofascists, and Gere thought it'd be magnanimous of us to offer a collective group hug...instead of pounding al Qaeda and its Taliban sponsors into oblivion. He seemed genuinely surprised at his chilly reception...after all, wasn't NYC supposed to be liberal?

Liberal? Yes. American? Damned skippy!

Anyway, Gere's trying his hand at international politics again. This time, urging Palestinians to vote in their upcoming election. Nothing wrong there...except for what follows in this NBC piece (bold letters are my emphasis, not the story's):

Actor Richard Gere has recorded a TV commercial urging Palestinians to vote in their election Sunday.

In a transcript obtained by The Associated Press, he said: "Hi, I'm Richard Gere, and I'm speaking for the entire world. We're with you during this election time. It's really important: Get out and vote."

Appearing with Gere in the spot are the head of the Islamic court in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and the spokesman for the Greek Orthodox Church in Jerusalem.

The spot is apparently an attempt to use both glamour and religion to get Palestinians to the polls. It will air soon. It's unclear what kind of sway Gere may have with Palestinians. One man who appeared with him in the spot said he'd never heard of Gere.

The ad will be aired on Palestinian TV and Arabic satellite channels in the next few days.

This man's arrogance knows no boundaries! I do find it funny, though, that Palestinians have never heard of him.

Tuesday, January 04, 2005

Americans..."stingy"? That's it...I've had it!

Admittedly, I've been a little out of the loop over the holidays. I have watched with great sadness the news of the tsunamis catastrophe. The carnage is, as my brother observed, "of Biblical proportions."

As usual, the American people have stepped forward, as have untold millions of other citizens across the world. And as usual, the impotent U.N. got caught in its inept response, looking like a deer in headlights. So King Kofi has weighed in, as have his minions, on how the U.S. isn't helping "enough" or is undermining the U.N.'s efforts. Efforts...at what?

Uh, Kofi...remember the Oil-for-Food scandal? Money intended to feed Iraqis was diverted to the pockets of UN other-way-lookers, including King Kofi's own snot-nosed son. King Kofi has steadfastly refused to cooperate in the investigation of this scandal, and he now has the gall to demand more money?! How shameless!

This idea that the U.S. is somehow giving less than it could/should is ludicrous. According to Neal Boortz, here is a partial list of contributors:

Japan - $500 million, including 3 Navy vessels sent to Thailand

The United States - $350 million -- so far. In cash, not counting military aid, which costs TONS of money. US aid will undoubtedly exceed one billion dollars. This US aid includes an entire carrier battle group and an amphibious battle group sent to the region .

Canada - $67 million

China $63 million

Great Britain - $29 million

Australia - $27 million

Saudi Arabia - $10 million

Iran - Nada

Syria - nunca

South Korea - $2 million

North Korea. Zilch.

Czech Republic - $446,000

And these figures do not even begin to represent the true level of giving. Boortz nails this one, too, with the following observation:

Some French-based (what else?) organization has drawn up some figures on the ration of charitable giving compared to a country's gross domestic product (GNP). These figures show that America only gives 0.14% of its GNP for relief. This supposedly makes us stingy. This French organization didn't count any of the money donated by individual Americans. You see, in the wonderful world of giving, only government giving counts. The actions of individuals are meaningless and not to be considered as part of the big picture. In 2003 individual Americans donated $241 billion to charitable causes. Private giving to tsunami victims will exceed anything spent by the US federal government.

There's a reason to only count government aid when tallying up a nation's charitable giving. For many years now much of the world has been engaged in an effort to create some sort f a world-wide income tax to be collected by the United Nations. This tax would be used to fund UN operations and for international relief efforts. You can promote this idea by showing that the evil rich Americans only give 0.14% of their GNP to international relief causes. If you include American's private giving that number goes way up. You aren't going to get very far with the idea of wealth-confiscation and redistribution if you acknowledge the charitable instincts of individual Americans.

Private charity...what a concept.

This quote from Charles Krauthammer should be used to bash any socialist, Euro-weenie, liberal, or some combination thereof, over the head:

We are six percent or less of the world's population, yet we give almost half. We are a very small number of people, relatively speaking, and we carry the weight of a dozen countries. Secondly, we maintain a military structure that keeps the peace of the world.....Who is in the Indian Ocean with the aircraft carriers, helicopters, skilled personal? No one has the infrastructure in the world, we spend almost half a trillion dollars a year on our military structure, which is essentially the fire department of the planet and it is always at the disposal of people hit in a national disaster.....Incidentally on food aid, we give 60% of all the food aid in the world. It is simply irresponsible to talk about the U.S. as anything other than the most generous nation on the planet.

This tragedy is, of course, being used politically by the UN and other one-world-government types as a "reason" (I use the word loosely) to confiscate more fruit from the producers. Who gets to decide how much and from whom? You guessed it...the U.N.

We help because we want to...not because we have to. The world "community", as well as sick American liberals, will not get away with politicizing this!

How to reverse harmful effects of the past

No, it's not a plug for affirmative action...but against it.

Professor Mike Adams, a TownHall.com contributor, has a fantastic idea on how to award special privileges for certain segments of society. It's a brilliant idea, written in the form of a letter to a student of his who is requesting special treatment. Full story here. An excerpt:

Dear absent student:

I received your recent email asking to be excused from the first two days of class. I am sorry that your mother bought your plane ticket before consulting the schedule for the semester. That happens a lot. In fact, it happens to at least one of my students every semester. But, please don’t worry. I am going to handle your situation under a new policy I have initiated for the coming semester.

Under my new policy, students with special needs will be able to open a “special needs account” every time that they need to be exempt from the rules that apply to everyone else. Vouchers will be deposited in the account in an amount that accurately reflects the magnitude of each student’s special need. Two vouchers have been deposited in your account to handle this week’s absences.

(snip...)

Throughout your entire career as a student, you have been taught that you are entitled to something, just because you have a special need. That is the mentality behind affirmative action. It also explains other problems like grade inflation. It is also the reason why socialism has failed despite the murders of 100 million individuals, all sacrificed for “the good of mankind.”

Since the rewarding of need and the corresponding punishment of achievement has been such a failure, there is only one rational thing to do. We must reverse the process. That is why, today, I am announcing a plan to deduct one point from your final average for every special needs voucher that you accumulate during the semester. The points will go to students who do not ask for special treatment but, instead, follow rules and seek to earn credit based upon individual merit.

(snip...)

There's more. You really must read the rest of this column. It's not long, and I haven't given away the whole ending here. Trust me!

I'm back, and ready to roll!

Happy New Year, everyone! I trust you had a wonderful Christmas and a Happy New Year (New Year's Day, anyway). With a new lease on life, new attitude, and exhuberance over my beloved FSU team's victory over a solid West Virginia in the Gator Bowl, I am ready to resume my daily blogging duties.

About Me

I am not conservative or Republican. I am a "neo-libertarian." It’s more logically consistent than conservatism and liberalism.
Liberals are not evil; however, their ideology has proven to be a demonstrable failure and incredibly harmful when administered on the body politic.
I have lived in the South all of my life. While I'd love to travel, I don't want to live anywhere else. Though I currently live near Jacksonville, FL, I call Memphis home (lived there most of my life). I'm a Florida State University Seminole, through and through.
All viewpoints are welcome on my blog. However, if I ban you or edit/delete your comments, it's because I found you to be offensive, repulsive, or otherwise useless. My world, my rules. Deal with it, or beat it.
Finally, I had a happy childhood, so my worldview has NOT been "warped" by a lousy upbringing. Quite the contrary: I have been blessed, and my outlook has been molded accordingly. I won't apologize for having grown up in a loving, middle-class family.